Persecuted Hindus fighting back

In April 2016, two English news channels “broke” news on the same day about the two most heinous crimes against Hindus and the Hindu nation perpetrated by Sonia Gandhi’s puppet regimes UPA I and II; not that this was any deep and dark secret. This article provides an overview of the twin conspiracies and revisits what I wrote in 2008 immediately after 26/11, and what I wrote in 2011 when the NSA-Home Minister duo had successfully implemented the twin plot. Revisiting what I wrote in 2008 and 2011 is necessary because they were written at the very time these events were unfolding using news as reported in newspapers and television news channels. When I connected the dots of what was not reported as “news” and what I gathered from my talks with several persons, what took shape looked like the most heinous crime against Hindus on Hindu bhumi (soil) since vivisection of the Hindu nation in 1947.

MK Narayanan and P Chidambaram actively presided over the most evil conspiracy in post-independent Bharat – one, to undermine and compromise national security by passing off a Muslim female suicide bomber as a sweet young thing who with three of her young and innocent companion-jihadis was gunned down by the Crime Branch of the Gujarat Police in what UPA I labelled was a “fake encounter”; and two, to label Hindus as terrorists on their own bhumi. Notwithstanding the cancerous public discourse of secularists and anti-Hindu intellectual establishment which refers to this timeless Hindu civilization as “idea of India” – this is Hindu bhumi. The carefully plotted and successfully implemented twin conspiracies became a desperate necessity for Sonia Gandhi and the Generic Church in the context of several scandals plaguing the Congress party and its political allies in the government, and the rise and rise of Narendra Modi and consequently the BJP.

This Rasputinesque plot was hatched to entangle Narendra Modi and Amit Shah in the “fake encounter” legal mesh and also to incapacitate Hindu society and any future BJP government from dealing appropriately with domestic or foreign Muslim terrorism against the nation. The conspiracy to label Hindus as terrorists and coin a new phrase “saffron terror” was to force Hindus to stop using the phrase ‘Muslim terrorists’ or ‘Islamic terrorism’ and worse, to introduce the patently false and unconvincing axiom in national security thesis – terrorism has no religion. And all this was successfully accomplished by Sonia Gandhi’s two principal henchmen MK Narayanan and P Chidambaram by railroading/sabotaging/misdirecting the investigation into the June 15, 2004 Ishrat Jahan killing, Malegaon blasts 2006 and 2008, and the 18 February, 2007 Samjhauta Express train blasts which killed 68 persons besides injuring many others. Herein is the answer to P Chidambaram’s “purpose served” cryptic response in August 2010 when asked by journalists why he coined the phrase “saffron terror”.

MK Narayanan became National Security Adviser in 2005 replacing JN Dixit who died suddenly and in the most mysterious circumstances. MK Narayanan was a permanent fixture in the Rajiv Gandhi household and like all Nehru family minions transferred his loyalty after Rajiv Gandhi died, to Sonia Gandhi for which he was handsomely rewarded when Sonia Gandhi made him the NSA. Hindu nationalists have never doubted that Sonia Gandhi had an agenda of her own when she married the eldest son of the Bharatiya Prime Minister. After all, her mother-in-law’s climb to the top of the power ladder in the Congress party had more to do with whose daughter she was than any past reputation for political astuteness or even experience; and Sonia Gandhi knew an opportunity when she saw one. MK Narayanan and P Chidambaram with deliberate intent hatched and executed the plot in alignment with Sonia Gandhi’s agenda for the country; senior ministers in UPA I and II who remained mute witnesses to this anti-Hindu plot were no less guilty than the evil duo, of what is now unfolding to be treason against the nation; but most tragic of all was B Raman’s endorsement of P Chidambaram’s “saffron terror” slur. While B Raman bemoaned the fact that the investigations into the Malegaon blast case of 2006 and 2008 and the Samjhauta blasts case was botched up by the CBI and NIA, and regretted that the central investigating agencies had two different yardsticks by which they dealt with Muslim and Hindu suspects in the case, it is nevertheless a fact that Raman did add strength to Sonia Gandhi’s “saffron terror” plot.

When investigations into the above mentioned acts of terror had been fouled and tainted beyond repair, P Chidambaram let loose the phrase “saffron terror” in August 2010 at a meeting of Police Chiefs in New Delhi, secure in the knowledge that important sections even among Hindu organizations had been persuaded to believe that Hindus had turned terrorists. P Chidambaram banked on the fact that Hindus could be terrorised, victimised and frightened into silence and there was little danger of any spontaneous or organized protest by Hindus against being labelled terrorists, exactly as was the case when Jayalalithaa arrested Pujya Kanchi Acharyas in 2004 and almost destroyed the matham with no Hindu resistance and therefore with total impunity. Unlike Muslims and Christians who can let loose violence on the streets and/or bring international pressure to bear upon the country’s government, Bharat’s Hindus have little political sense and no sense of the power of their sheer numbers to respond to any slight, insult, humiliation and threat. MK Narayanan and P Chidambaram banked on Hindu cowardice and powerlessness and used Hemant Karkare and Col. Purohit to execute their dirty tricks. Soon after P Chidambaram injected the “saffron terror” venom into the nation’s public discourse, B Raman wrote thus in the January 17 issue of Indian Defence Review:

“I am proud to have sounded the wake-up call as early as in 2006 to the dangers of some angry members of the Hindu community taking to reprisal acts of terrorism against our Muslims if the Government does not take note of the perceptions in sections of the Hindu community that it has been soft towards the jihadi terrorists. I have been writing and speaking on this from time to time since then”. (Indian Defence Review, 17 January, 2011)

B Raman not only gave credence to P Chidambaram’s “saffron terror” pink elephant, Raman in fact designed and prepared the blueprint for “Hindu terror” when earlier he described ULFA as Hindu terrorists.

B Raman like Karkare saw the truth behind the evil plot only after the damage had been done and like Karkare carried the burden of his belated realization to the funeral pyre, a sad, disillusioned man whose scrupulous honesty and fearlessness to speak the truth proved to be his Achilles heel. If the Army, Military Intelligence, MATS, CBI, NIA, and above all else, B Raman’s integrity and fidelity to truth was just so much collateral damage, then Swami Aseemanand, Sadhvi Pragya and Col. Purohit were the evil duo’s prey.

Overview of unfolding evil

JN Dixit who was made National Security Adviser in 2004, died in January 2005

MK Narayanan, who was made Special Adviser on Internal Security to the Prime Minister in May 2004, replaced Dixit as NSA; with MK Narayanan was born the Dirty Tricks Department of Bharat’s intelligence services; what is yet to be established is whether the CIA Dirty Tricks Department had any hand in creating the Bharatiya variant.

If Sonia Gandhi had an agenda, then MK Narayanan was the first and most powerful instrument of the agenda. Narayanan began to move the pieces step by measured step almost immediately after he took charge as NSA.

The three agencies involved in the plot to create “Hindu terror” were the CBI, Maharashtra ATS and NIA while the Army and Military Intelligence (MI) were dragged into the evil plot, knowingly or unknowingly, which fact is yet to be placed in the public domain.

The Maharashtra ATS (MATS) was formed in 2004 and KP Raghuvanshi was the first chief of MATS; Raghuvanshi was previously with the CBI.

MATS and Mumbai police, before Karkare replaced Raghuvanshi, arrested several members of SIMI for the Malegaon blasts of 2006 while the Indian Mujahideen had proudly admitted that it was responsible for the Samjhauta Express train blasts; but after MK Narayanan took over as NSA and after P Chidambaram took over as Home Minister and after Hemant Karkare replaced Raghuvanshi as Chief of MATS, investigations into the same acts of terror was transformed into a witch-hunt for Hindu terrorists.

Immediately after MK Narayanan took over as NSA and totally out of the blue, a new Hindu organization, Abhinav Bharat was formed in Pune in 2006 and Himani Savarkar, niece of Nathuram Godse who is also married to the nephew of Vinayak Savarkar, is elected President ofAbhinav Bharat

Lt. Col. Shrikant Purohit, a serving officer in Military Intelligence (which fact was almost certainly kept secret) is one of the founders of Abhinav Bharat and is made Permanent Trustee of Abhinav Bharat Trust; which fact alone points all fingers in the direction of Sonia Gandhi and MK Narayanan.

How can a serving officer in Military Intelligence be associated with founding a new Hindu organization explicitly intended to give Hindus military training as counter-measure to increasing jihadi terror attacks against Hindus and Hindu temples? A Hindu organization which bore the name of Veer Savarkar’s Abhinav Bharat and whose first President was not only Nathuram Godse’s niece but was also related by marriage to Savarkar.

Lt. Col. Purohit almost certainly was tasked to float this new Hindu organization which was intended to be the launching pad for Purohit to establish contact with the RSS eventually to infiltrate the RSS and other parivar organizations.

The NSA or the army or MI or MATS or NIA or all of them convinced the RSS that they had credible intelligence reports that members of Abhinav Bharat had plotted to kill Mohan Bhagwat and other important RSS pracharaks. This was done to pre-empt and silence any protest when Sonia Gandhi and her henchmen would arrest Hindu religious leaders and members of Hindu organizations for the Samjhauta Express blasts and for Malegaon blasts of 2006 and 2008.

The ploy worked exceedingly well. When MK Narayanan’s dirty tricks department dragged the Army and MI into the sordid conspiracy and arrested Sadhvi Pragya, Swami Aseemanand and Lt. Col. Purohit, violating all due processes of law, the RSS was mute; as was the BJP and the VHP; exactly as calculated by the Congress government and exactly as they were silenced earlier when catastrophe befell the Kanchi mutt in 2004.

Lt. Col Purohit was used by Sonia Gandhi’s puppet regime to do two things – convince the most powerful Hindu organization, the RSS that it was the target of Hindu terrorists and simultaneously spread the canard that Swami Aseemanand, an RSS man was responsible for the Samjhauta train blasts. In one brilliant stroke the RSS was both victim of Hindu terror and Hindu terrorist outfit.

And close on the heels of arresting “Hindu terrorists” in October 2008, totally unexpectedly, 26/11 happened in November 2008; Hemant Karkare died in the line of duty.

Shivraj Patil resigned owning moral responsibility for the Mumbai terror attack and inexplicably, P Chidambaram, not Pranab Mukherjee, was made Home Minister.

Speaking soon after taking charge as Home Minister, Chidambaram said he will put in the same principles and work ethic that he had used in the Finance Ministry.

Knowing what we do now about P Chidambaram’s unscrupulous and downright treasonous decision to rewrite the entire Ishrat Jahan story where with a sleight of hand Chidambaram made Modi and Amit Shah the villains and Ishrat and her co-jihadis innocent victims, and knowing what we do now about the sordid corruption in the Agusta Westland VVIP chopper case, if P Chidambaram by his own admission has said he will put in place the same principles and work ethic in the Home Ministry as in the Finance Ministry, Modi sarkar must now investigate P Chidambaram’s tenure as Finance Minister.

In December 2008 the NIA was constituted by an act of Parliament and the newly formed NIA conveniently had P Chidambaram for boss.

If MK Narayanan presided over inventing Hindu terrorists, P Chidambaram presided over letting off known jihadis and jihadi outfits for terror acts and pinning them all on Narayanan’s newly minted Hindu terrorists.

Having accomplished what they were tasked to do – create and arrest Hindu terrorists the Indian Intelligence Dirty Tricks Department had no more use for the fiction that Mohan Bhagwat and other senior RSS leaders were the specific targets of Hindu terrorists belonging to Abhinav Bharat, and they allowed the fiction to melt in the darkness. The RSS in its letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh dated February 8, 2011 raises this issue in no uncertain terms: “But despite being in possession of such explosive, critical and specific evidence of the plot the MATS took a “conscious decision” and told the Bombay High Court in July 2010 that, as there was nothing ‘”specific”, “no further action is required to be taken” on the alleged plot to kill the RSS leaders, “except to wait for the outcome of the pending trial”.

I rest my case.

What I wrote in 2008

Hemant Karkare is dead allegedly while bravely fighting the terrorists and so we may never know the truth. But we can connect the dots, and the picture it makes causes grave disquiet. Some say he died of bullets to the chest, some say to the neck, some say bullet proof vests are useless against AK 47s and Kalashnikovs while others say Karkare had removed his bullet proof vest and was killed when he was seated in his car. Long before the Mumbai terror attack, I had expressed the view to two of my friends that the thrust of the investigations into the Malegaon blasts is not to find the accused guilty but to weaken any future BJP government’s measures to deal with jihad, jihadis and religious conversion undertaken by Islam and the Church and to question the government’s motives. Whoever master-minded the investigations and was directing the ATS did not want any change in the public discourse on terror or on the issue of the basis of nationhood. The entire investigation had the following fall-out –

Bring disrepute to stringent laws like POTA by using a state law like the MCOCA against innocent Hindus to demonstrate cynically and contemptuously to the RSS and the BJP that we have shown you how a law can be misused.

Bring disrepute to narco-analysis by forcing Hindus to discredit the method because Hindus perceived it as being used against Hindus to arrest them allegedly on the basis of what they ‘confessed’ under the influence of psychotropic drugs.

Bring army intelligence agencies (Lt. Col. Purohit) into disrepute so that any action resulting from army intelligence against jihadis and jihad-sponsoring outfits and nations can be laid at the door of ‘Hindu extremists’ in the army.

The resultant disrepute is that the Bharatiya Army is communalised and anti-Muslim by nature.

Label Hindu sadhus and sanyasis as terrorists so that any resistance from Hindu society to jihad and religious conversion may, in future be labeled as acts of terror by “sangh-parivar outfits”. The national debate on Bangladeshi Muslims, the pan-national loyalty of all Muslims to the Ummah and religious conversion would thus conveniently acquire ‘Hindu terror’ dimensions.

Undermine people’s faith in all institutions and organizations wielding great moral authority and influence, and this includes our police and armed forces.

To put it bluntly, the nature and direction of the Malegaon blasts investigation, which had become a witch-hunt for ‘Hindu terrorists’, was intended to weaken, defame and ultimately neutralise all centers of Hindu resistance to jihad and the evangelical church. The media has been reporting that Hemant Karkare died a very unhappy man. He is alleged to have expressed his deep unhappiness about ‘political interference’ into the Malegaon blasts investigations to two media persons of two English TV news channels. Karkare is also reported to have asked the Maharashtra Home Minister RR Patil, on the very day he died, to be transferred out of the ATS. Such was his unhappiness.

We have it from one of the media persons who spoke to Karkare the day before he died that Karkare told him that over 90% of the ATS had been diverted into the Malegaon blasts probe.This witch-hunt for Hindu terrorists has all the hallmark of having been conceived in the mind of a strategist for the Congress party or its President, and who was probably himself/herself being manipulated by string-pullers located elsewhere. The questions and suspicions that come to our mind –

The Times of India, dated 27th November, 2008, on page 11 reported that Hemant Karkare met the National Security Adviser (NSA) MK Narayanan in Delhi.

When the Prime Minister refused to accept the NSA’s resignation in the wake of the Mumbai terror attack, a functionary in the PMO declared that the NSA is “not expected to micro-manage national security”.

If that be so, why was the NSA taking such intense interest in the Malegaon blasts probe?

Why did the NSA summon the ATS chief Karkare to Delhi unless it was to seek an explanation as to why the ATS failed to get custody of Sadhvi Pragya and Lt.Col. Purohit in the MCOCA court.

Why was MK Narayanan so anxious to know why the accused Hindus will not continue to remain in ATS custody?

If Karkare had seven years of experience in R&AW, almost all of them overseas appointments, why was he removed from R&AW and appointed chief of ATS?

Who chose Karkare for the job and why was he chosen when he had little or no field experience in tackling terror in Mumbai?

If Karkare was unhappy about political interference in the Malegaon blasts probe, why did he not resign instead of submitting to lead the ATS on a wild-goose-chase?

If Karkare was heading the ATS why did he not equip the ATS with battle gear appropriate for fighting jihadis possessing sophisticated and contemporary arms, explosives and technology? After all the city of Mumbai has always been the chosen target of jihadis, besides Hindu temples.

Why was Shivraj Patil made Home Minister and why was he not removed until the very end when the UPA is on its way out of Delhi?

Who chose MK Narayanan as National Security Adviser when he had worked for the Ford Foundation funded American think-tank, Center for Security Analysis, just prior to his appointment?

We get the sinking feeling that the FBI and the Scotland Yard are here to “take charge” of the investigations only to make sure that their readings of all evidence will not point to Pakistan. The US and the UK need Pakistan for more reasons than one and it is my conjecture that their conclusions are going to be different from those of Bharatiya investigating agencies. And MK Narayanan has been retained as NSA probably because this government wants to make sure that the FBI and Scotland Yard are unhindered in their dubious mission. The UPA government too does not want war with Pakistan, jihad, jihadis or the evangelical church. The silence about why Bharat permitted the non-reciprocal measure of foreign investigating agencies to come to Bharat to “assist in the investigations” is also mystifying. While the media is going after Vilasrao Deshmukh, Achuthanandan, Ramgopal Verma and Shivraj Patil, it has kept its hands off the NSA. Who is pulling the media strings? (http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1007:mumbai-terror-probe-silence-of-the-conspirators&catid=55:plainspeak&Itemid=71 Mumbai Terror Probe: Silence of the Conspirators)

What I wrote in 2011

The Congress-led UPA government is climbing up a neck-breaking slippery slope – to label Hindus terrorists on their own bhumi. B Raman was the first to blow this soap-bubble into public discourse when he described ULFA as Hindu terrorists. A retired bureaucrat and well-known counter-terrorism expert, Raman’s outlandish claim went unchallenged although the writer, in a private email to Raman expressed great disappointment over the thoughtless expression with the observation that ULFA could be labeled a Hindu outfit only if they claimed to be acting in the name of Hinduism to serve a Hindu cause. The writer carried the discussion further with the argument that if there was no Hindu objective to ULFA’s actions and if Raman’s bizarre logic were to be applied across the board then we would henceforth have to name all offences with a prefix indicating the offender’s religion – Hindu smuggler, Christian molester, Muslim history-sheeter, Jain shoplifter, Parsi goonda and so on. That effectively popped Raman’s ULFA Hindu terrorist soap-bubble.

It is a pity to stick a pin into Raman’s pride for what he thinks was his original insight; perhaps Raman should now seriously consider the possibility that the idea of Hindu terror may have been cleverly implanted in his mind from as early as 2005 by his own fraternity – either by intelligence officials in Bharat or foreign intelligence officials with clever suggestions, bogus facts and disputable, even fabricated ‘evidence’. After all this is the most evil, most functional and one of the busiest networks in the world, as exposed by Julian Assange to whom the sane world of ordinary people owes an eternal debt of gratitude.

Considering that Raman first floated this soap-bubble in 2006, had all this been above board, logically speaking, for a counter-terrorism expert like Raman there ought to have been at the very least two or three terror attacks prior to or up until 2006 with a discernible pattern which compelled him to conclude “as early as in 2006” that there existed a pink elephant called Hindu Terror.

Varanasi bombings – A series of bombings that occurred across Varanasi on 7 March 2006

Mumbai Train Bombings – 11 July 2006 were a series of seven bomb blasts that took place over a period of 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai

Malegaon blasts – September 28, 2006

Incendiary explosion, Samjhauta Express – 18 February, 2007

Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad blasts – 18 May, 2007

Ajmer Sharif blasts – 15 October 2007

Malegaon blasts – September 29, 2008

The UPA government and Sonia’s minions have held Sadhvi Pragya and Pujya Swami Aseemanand guilty (without an ounce of proof so far) only for the Malegaon blasts and the terror acts in 2007, as shown in the list above; but as per this list for Raman to have arrived at his original conclusion on Hindu terror in 2006, he could only have studied the attacks on Bharat’s Parliament, the burning alive of karsevaks in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra, the terror attack on Akshardham Temple, the IISc terror attack, the Varanasi bombings and the Mumbai suburban train serial explosions; these were the only acts of terror that preceded the Malegaon blasts of 2006.

The Malegaon blasts of 2008 were followed by blasts in Modasa in Gujarat, serial blasts in Jaipur, on Ramjanmabhumi, last year in the German Bakery in Pune, and another near the Dasashwamedha Ghat in Varanasi and the nation is holding its breath waiting for the UPA government to pin these too on the RSS since no arrests have been made so far and no charge-sheet has been filed.

So much for prior cases and precedents; now let us look at the nature of these attacks and see if there is any pattern to them. Some of the striking features of these acts of terror are-

Gun-toting and maybe explosives carrying terrorists as in the Parliament attack case, in IISc Bangalore and Mumbai 26/11

The writer is not a terrorism or counter-terrorism expert but has enough intelligence which does not see a pattern here that points in the direction of Hindu terror. Crude bombs do not cause extensive damage and cause nil or very low mortality while medium and high rates of mortality are caused by use of two devices – high intensity Improvised Explosive Device (IED) or Timed Incendiary Device (TID). As their names suggest, the first uses explosives improvised to cause maximum damage accompanied by killing metal shrapnel and glass splinters; the second causes maximum damage by fire.

The Mumbai suburban train blasts and the Jaipur serial blasts were caused by IEDs while the terror attack in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra and Samjhauta Express have been caused by TIDs. Islamic jihadis seem to have used both IEDs and TIDs when they took Mumbai hostage in November 2008. Even before investigating agencies could determine what caused the Malegaon blasts in 2006, and notwithstanding the fact that SIMI took credit for the same, Raman gave credence to the Hindu terror fiction. One reason why other terrorism experts dismissed the Hindu terror theory was the fact that Hindus as individuals and Hindu groups do not have access to RDX and this is a critical factor in the argument. It is around this critical factor that the diabolic plot to label Hindus as terrorists on their own bhumi has been crafted and executed.

RDX is a high intensity explosive and use of RDX even in miniscule quantities causes immense damage and destruction

RDX can be used not only in bombs but also as a component along with ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, as reports suggest, to make TIDs

RDX is therefore only available with the army in Bharat and is under army lock and key

Every ounce is strictly accounted for and it is in the army’s interest and in the interest of the nation to declare any theft of RDX no matter how small a quantity

Some Islamic states which use jihad as a weapon of foreign policy to serve Islam’s political objectives, allow non-state groups to possess RDX to be used in acts of jihad against target nations and peoples

Therefore while it is possible for jihadi groups in Bharat to get hold of RDX through the seamless global jihadi network and the nation’s porous borders, it is next to impossible for Hindu groups to access RDX from jihadis or from the Bharatiya army

The Bharatiya state and army have so far not allowed non-state actors to possess RDX in any quantity

When Raman blew the soap-bubble of Hindu terror in 2006 without a shred of hard evidence in which to root his claim, the time had come to put substance into the soap bubble. JN Dixit, a distinguished and highly regarded career diplomat whom the writer knew personally to be a well-cloaked fierce nationalist, was the UPA’s National Security Adviser when the UPA came to power in Delhi in 2004. After Dixit’s unexpected and sudden death in January 2005, MK Narayanan was appointed NSA. One of the first things that Narayanan did was to hand-pick Hemant Karkare as chief of Maharashtra ATS; a position for which Karkare had no experience. These questions deserve to be asked –

Why did Sonia Gandhi appoint MK Narayanan, Intelligence Bureau (IB) man and more important, her family loyalist, to the extremely sensitive post of NSA (The writer is not even going into the mysterious circumstances causing JN Dixit’s sudden death which made it possible for Narayanan to be appointed to the post)?

Why did MK Narayanan appoint the inexperienced Karkare as chief of Maharashtra ATS?

The second question is significant because the most important scene in the Hindu terror plot was shot in locales in Maharashtra, in Malegaon. Read this together with the RSS alleging that Col. Purohit, a serving army officer with Military Intelligence (first Intelligence Bureau, now Military Intelligence in the Hindu terror plot), began his machinations to divide and weaken the RSS from within in 2005[i] and what we get is no clichéd conspiracy theory but a diabolic plot to move Bharat in the direction of post-Hindu Bharat.

If we also read it in the context of Sonia Gandhi’s towering ambitions to become Prime Minister being foiled by an active campaign by Hindu nationalists opposing her on grounds of her foreign nationality, then what we get is a determined decision by whoever planted Sonia Gandhi on this unsuspecting nation, to politically dis-empower and decimate Hindu nationalists as was done in 1908. As in 1908, so in 2005 when the plot to label Hindus as terrorists was hatched, Hindu nationalism was sought to be annihilated only with the complicity of shameless Hindus in polity.

The core objective of the evil plot to break the Hindu spirit and keep Hindus in a state of turmoil seems to have been to launch a full scale attack against Hindu sanyasis, to defame and defile them and to physically annihilate the RSS – two institutions which best represent the Hindu nation and sense of nationhood and may be termed to be our immune system. Weakening any one of them is guaranteed to weaken the entire Hindu society vis a vis the Abrahamic religions and their agenda for a non-Hindu/post-Hindu polity in Bharat.

What follows is the writer’s interpretation of the facts which have been put in the public domain. The only note of caution that the writer sounds is that no corroborative evidence, has so far been presented by any of the state ATS, the CBI or the NIA to back these “facts” which have been given to us; nevertheless, it is possible as the writer hopes to prove, to present the same facts in a different fact-sheet. If the government has a better explanation, let it pass muster in the courts.

Conclusion

There is growing feeling among the BJP’s staunchest supporters that the party and Modi Sarkar for some reason are not willing to make Pakistan, Sonia Gandhi, P Chidambaram and MK Narayanan pay for their crimes of omission and commission against the country and against Hindus. Like Aurobindo remarked astutely a hundred years ago, our beginnings are great and mighty but Hindus lack the stamina and the will to sustain the momentum and all mighty beginnings come to a whimpering stop. For Modi Sarkar to align itself with the aspirations of ordinary Hindus and Hindu nationalists it must do some very big things to restore the faith of Hindus in Modi and the BJP:

Modi Sarkar must make Pakistan pay in a manner that ordinary citizens understand to be justice

This government must neutralise/liquidate Dawood Ibrahim, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Hafiz Saeed either inside Pakistan or remove them with force from Pakistan and bring them to Bharat where they will face our courts and our law for their crimes against Bharat and her people

Investigate the twin heinous conspiracies labelling Hindus as terrorist and letting off known jihadis and jihadi organizations for their acts of terror from 2004 when Sonia Gandhi ruled the country till 2014 when Narendra Modi became Prime Minister, and fix blame where it lies and punish the guilty for not only compromising the nation’s efforts to deal with terrorism but also for high treason.

Finally, Modi personally and his government must know that Pakistan is backed, funded and encouraged in its anti-Bharat terrorist ways not just by China but by America too. America, more than China gives Pakistan the temerity to take pride in being a terrorist state. Modi Sarkar must move out of the American orbit, must stop chasing its tail on foreign policy issues because the Generic Church sees Bharat as a potential destination for their capital and goods besides an important nation in their end-of-the-world Kingdom of God on Earth, while Islam sees Bharat as Dar-ul-harb destined to become Dar-ul-Islam. Pakistan-America partnership is the historical Church-Islam partnership against Hindus and Hindu Bharat.

As always the Hindu nation was betrayed only by renegade Hindus from within.

ON 11 May 1946, Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan had accepted the plan for a united India federation during the Cabinet Mission’s negotiations. This had triggered a political upheaval in India and Britain. Neither Mahatma Gandhi nor Clement Attlee could comprehend this twist of Jinnah. The British Prime Minister was worried that America, which had since 1942 advocated such a federation, might come forward to support this move. Attlee and Churchill tried to sabotage the federation plan by directing Cripps through coded cipher cables. There was a code ~ ‘Novic’ ~ for such cables which were not to be seen even by Viceroy Wavell. (R J Moore, Escape from Empire, p. 77).

Before the Cabinet Mission members left India on 29 June 1946, Cripps concluded his assignment. He had persuaded Gandhi to write his letter, to be sent through Louis Fischer. On 25 June, Fischer arrived in India and met Gandhi and Cripps on 27 June. After the Mission’s departure, Nehru criticised the provincial grouping as embodied in the Cabinet Mission plan. Cripps and Pethick-Lawrence made confusing statements on the Mission’s achievements in both Houses of the British Parliament. Gandhi had strong reservations on the federation scheme. The Congress won a majority in the Constituent Assembly election result in July 1946. All these factors paved the ground for Muslim League hardliners to reject Jinnah’s acceptance of a united India federation.

By the time Fischer had left India on 25 July, after collecting Gandhi’s letter dated 15 July, and his personal secretary Khurshed’s letter dated 22 July, Jinnah was planning to meet the All India Muslim League Council delegates in Bombay from 27-29 July 1946. In that convention, the Direct Action resolution for sovereign Pakistan was adopted by the League. Effectively, the concept of a united Indian federation was abandoned. After this League convention, Sir R F Mudie, Governor of Sind, met two prominent Sind League leaders ~ Ghulam Hussain and M A Khuhro ~ separately and reported the outcome of these discussions in an undated secret note to the Viceroy Wavell: “Ghulam Hussain’s account did not differ much from Khuhro’s. He said that the decision was unanimous, and that, if Jinnah had not agreed to something of this sort, the feeling was so strong that he would have been swept aside”. (Transfer of Power, vol 8 p 213).

The communal riots were engineered over the next three weeks after Gandhi gave his written consent to Partition… under British supervision. Jinnah had realised that communal riots had been precipitated by his fanatical supporters after he was forced to accept the “direct action” resolution. Also, he was forced to abandon the united India plan and accept a sovereign truncated Pakistan. Realising his predicament, Wavell said, “I think that he (Jinnah) is probably no longer in control of events on the Muslim side. Jinnah told the Viceroy on 19 November 1946 that the Muslims had to have their own bit of country and let it be as small as you like. But it must be our own”. (Wavell: Viceroy’s Journal, p 378). Wavell told Jinnah: “The only alternative to agreement was civil war, which was likely to be disastrous for the Muslims”. Jinnah insisted that any settlement between the Congress and his Muslim League was “quite impossible” (Transfer of Power, vol 9, p 108-109).

The Muslim League’s refusal to enter the Constituent Assembly and accept the federation scheme for united India without a British guarantee on the grouping procedure signified a secret intent of the colonial masters to create Pakistan. As Jinnah had himself told Wavell that he was amenable to accept a sovereign moth-eaten Pakistan, Attlee decided it was time to advance an official clarification on the “grouping procedure” which Jinnah was seeking since June 1946. Before this, the Prime Minister wanted to show that Britain was keen to have a united India under a single Constituent Assembly and therefore, at his bidding ~ to show before the USA ~ Viceroy Wavell had issued invitations to attend the Constituent Assembly which would meet on 9 December 1946.

Jinnah publicly refused, saying that the League stood by its withdrawal from the Cabinet Mission plan, unless it was guaranteed by the British Government. The British statement of 6 December 1946 at the end of the London Conference reaffirmed the victory for the League. But it was too late, for Jinnah had already been forced to swallow the bait for a moth-eaten Pakistan. No wonder Wavell in his last letter had told the King on 24 February 1947: “It (6 December 1946 statement) should in my view have been made many months earlier.”

After the London conference, Jinnah and Liaquat stayed back. Churchill and Simon took advantage of Jinnah’s presence to conclude their final strategy to create Pakistan which would be protected by Britain under a defence treaty. On 11 December, Churchill sent Jinnah an address that he might use without attracting attention in India. The former Prime Minister would sign himself as “Gilliatt” (his secretary’s name). Jinnah was asked to provide an accommodating address and to mention his code word for signature. Simon sent to Jinnah the names of members of the House of Lords who would be particularly interested in the subject of Pakistan, pre-eminently Lord Salisbury (father of Sir John Simon and also the “Nestor” of Churchill’s Cell). On 11 December, the British Cabinet noted that the “pressure of events was leading to the establishment of some form of Pakistan” (Transfer of Power, vol 9, p. 358).

The “pressure of events” became more evident when Churchill told the House of Commons on 12 December that he favoured Britain retaining an important post-imperial presence in a divided sub-continent ~ meaning Britain would keep Pakistan under their political and defence control. Jinnah wrote to the Prime Minister: “Is this country to go down in history with the badge of betrayal upon her?”.

In India, Sardar Patel was also suffering from a sense of betrayal, especially at the hands of Cripps who had played the role of a Congress sympathizer during the Cabinet Mission’s visit. He had accepted the Congress interpretation of the “grouping procedure” and his doublespeak ended after being in favour of Jinnah for six months. Patel had realised that Cripps’ assurances were meant only to induct the Congress into the government to soften their attitude towards the British. In parallel, the League’s political temper was against the Congress, indeed secretively to precipitate the communal discord over the creation of Pakistan. He took serious exception to the last paragraph of the London declaration which stated that no Constitution, framed by a Constituent Assembly in which a large section of the Indian population had not been represented, would be forced upon any unwilling part of the country. Patel conveyed his opinion to acting Viceroy Sir John Colville on 10 December. He described this “encouragement of Pakistan as a “betrayal” in the wake of Attlee’s announcement in Parliament on 15 March 1946 that “we cannot allow a minority to place a veto on the advance of the majority”. Patel has suggested if the British really wanted to leave India, the government should name a date of departure, perhaps by 1 January 1948, when Jinnah would be bound to compromise. (Transfer of Power, vol 9, p 322-23).

Patel and G D Birla agreed with V P Menon that Britain would not leave India without creating Pakistan. Patel wanted to get rid of Jinnah’s so-called Pakistan provinces, without realising the fate of the huge non-Muslim population that would be left out in those areas. Birla wrote a series of letters between 12 and 15 December to Stafford Cripps suggesting a truncated Pakistan, on 16 December to A V Alexander, and on 18 December to the acting Viceroy Colville.

Patel in a letter to Cripps dated 15 December denounced him as a traitor: “You have created a very unfavourable situation for me. All of us here feel that there has been a betrayal. Your interpretation means that Bengal Muslims can draw the constitution of Assam.” (Durga Das, Sardar Patel Correspondences, vol 3, p 313-15).

Birla, V P Menon and Patel tried to work out a constitutional settlement of the issue of a truncated Pakistan. The idea was crystallised on the basis of two dominions in accord with the Act of 1935. The crystallised scheme, which was dictated in the presence of Sardar Patel, was sent with the Viceroy’s knowledge to Pethick-Lawrence, through Gandhi’s emissary Sudhir Ghosh (V P Menon, Transfer of Power in India, p. 359).

ON 24 January 1947, Sir Norman Smith, Director of the Intelligence Bureau had submitted a report on the Indian situation in 1946 to Viceroy Wavell. Its copies were later endorsed by Pethick-Lawrence for the information of Attlee, Cripps and A V Alexander. “The game has been well played … the Indian problem has been thereby thrust into its appropriate plane of communalism, some kind of an opportunity for orderly evacuation now presents itself … Grave communal disorder must not disturb us into action, which would reintroduce the anti-British agitation. The latter may produce an inordinately dangerous situation and lead us nowhere … As I have said for some months, Pakistan is likely to flow from “Congresstan” (the acceptance of office by Congress) … I do not think Pakistan will bring advantage to the Indian Muslims” (Transfer of Power, vol 9; p 544).

On 14 February 1947, Attlee sent a telegram to the King who was headed for South Africa on board IIMS-Vanguard: “Attlee was proposing to announce a statement in the House of Commons on 20 February 1947 for fixing a terminal date to end the British rule in India”. Before Mountbatten’s arrival, Birla, Patel and Menon met each day from 3 to 7 March to finalise the Punjab and Bengal Partition resolution. On 7 March, Patel had met Devadas Gandhi (Gandhi’s youngest son), editor of Hindustan Times (owned by G D Birla) and its joint editor, K Santhanam, for publishing the resolution on 9 March. Before this resolution was passed on 8 March, Patel had maintained the political courtesy by conveying the Congress acceptance of a truncated Pakistan to Jinnah through their common confident Kanji Dwarkadas. “If the League insists on Pakistan, the only alternative is the division of the Punjab and Bengal”. (Kanji Dwarkadas, Ten Years to Freedom, p 207).

VK Krishna Menon had briefed Mountbatten on 13 March 1947 regarding the partition of Bengal with Calcutta to be retained in India. Mountbatten had come to India duly prepared about the course of action to be taken for protecting British interests. “Mountbatten’s first few weeks contain an element of playacting, with everyone except Jinnah, mouthing the appropriate sentiments about Indian unity, yet all except Gandhi privately knowing that the cause was lost. Ismay was deputed to prepare a plan for the partition of India”. (Philip Ziegler, Mountbatten: the Official Biography, p 374).

In a public speech on 20 April, Nehru said: “The Muslim League can have Pakistan, if they wish to have it, but on the condition that they do not take away other parts of India which do not wish to join Pakistan. (Menon, op cit p 354). Two days later, Nehru, who had earlier met Mountbatten in Singapore, categorically told the Viceroy that the Congress would never share power with the League at the Centre on the basis of equality between the two, nor between the two sovereign states (Transfer of Power, vol 10, p 364).

Mountbatten met Gandhi and Jinnah on 4 and 5 May before he could bring out the secret “Menon Plan” (received through Sudhir Ghosh) as his own. At the behest of Mountbatten, Gandhi again met Jinnah on 6 May. The Mahatma ironed out their agreement in secret for the partition of Bengal and Punjab. A communique was issued by Jinnah as a public exercise with Gandhi’s approval: “We discussed the question of division of India into Pakistan and Hindustan. Mr Gandhi does not accept the principle of division. He thinks that division is not inevitable, whereas in my opinion not only is Pakistan inevitable but it is the only practical solution of India’s political problem.” (Kanji Dwarkadas, op cit p 213).

Gandhi informed Mountbatten on 8 May that despite a very pleasant meeting with Jinnah on 6 May, the Muslim League leader was quite firm that the question of Pakistan was not open to any discussion. The same day, Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy: “I feel sure that partition of Punjab and Bengal is wrong in every case.” (Transfer of Power, vol 10, p 667).

Jinnah’s next move was deliberate. He gave Gandhi an opportunity to prove that he was indeed against the partition of Punjab and Bengal. On 9 May 1947, it was reported in The Hindu that Jinnah had no objection to allow Bengal to participate in the Constituent Assembly, “or going out of his Pakistan plan, if the western zone of Pakistan (with undivided Punjab) was conceded to him.” (Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, vol 2, p 178).

It appears that if Bengal’s case was accepted by the Congress, Punjab would have raised the same demand, thus defeating the Pakistan scheme. Jinnah’s proposal was also not acceptable to Birla who since 1937 was persuading Congress leaders to divide Bengal into Hindu and Muslim provinces. When Jinnah was willing to part with Bengal/ Calcutta to tackle this issue, Patel appeared on the scene. Without realising the meaning of Jinnah’s tactics, he was not willing to give away the non-Muslim majority East Punjab and likewise, the non-Muslim majority West Bengal with Calcutta. On 9 May 1947, Patel spelt out his response to the Associated Press. “If the Muslim League insists it wants separation (from the existing Constituent Assembly) then the Congress will not compel them to remain by force. But it will result in dividing Bengal and Punjab”. (Transfer of Power, vol 10, p 716-17).

On 17 May, Jinnah made another attempt to warn Mountbatten and the British Cabinet against partitioning Bengal and Punjab. On 20 May, Sir Eric Mieville, principal secretary to the Viceroy, cabled Mountbatten in London: “Jinnah told me ‘I am not speaking as a Partisan, but I beg you to tell Lord Mountbatten once again that he will be making a grave mistake if he agrees to the partition of Bengal and Punjab’”. (Transfer of Power, vol 10, pp 852, 916).

Jinnah gave another opportunity to Congress leaders to avoid physical partition by raising the issues of transfer of population with exchange of assets. Jinnah, as an astute lawyer, was acutely aware that Hindus and Sikhs owning more than over 80 per cent of the land and business in the West Pakistan zone, especially in West Punjab, and Bengali Hindus of East Bengal holding over 80 per cent landed property, the very idea of Pakistan could be defeated through such talk of population and asset exchange. He was also aware that if the population and asset exchange idea was thoroughly publicised, the Muslims in India would create such a hue and cry that the Pakistan balloon would be pricked. Patel and Nehru were not inclined to implement the population and asset exchange proposal as it would not lead to the creation of Pakistan to provide the Congress an opportunity to get rid of Jinnah from the Indian mainland. Besides, Sir R F Mudie, the then Governor of Sind, who was also keen to create Pakistan in the interest of Britain, dissuaded Jinnah from talking of transfer of population which he had done after the Bihar riots (Madhab Godbole, The Holocaust of Indian Partition, p 283; Stephen P Cohen, The Idea of Pakistan, p 49).

During the AICC meeting on 14 June 1947, convened to consider Mountbatten’s Partition plan, Gandhi didn’t reject the idea. Nor for that matter did he call for a movement against the idea of Pakistan. Nehru admitted somewhat apologetically that the Congress would not be able to help the Sikhs and Hindus of West Punjab and the Hindus of East Bengal for the division of the Punjab and Bengal. He and Patel were silent on the issue of population and asset exchange. The communal tension that was building up turned neighbours into killers and soured relations between colleagues. It led to the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs in West Pakistan and riots in Calcutta.
On 16 October 1949, Nehru told a meeting in New York that if the Congress had an inkling of the terrible consequences of Partition, it would have resisted the division of India. “It was a big mistake on our part not to have listened to Bapu (Gandhi) at that time.” Nehru stopped short of telling the meeting that his “Bapu” never raised his voice against Mountbatten’s partition plan during the AICC session on 14 June 1947.

‘Bearing arms is our birth right and why should we take anybody’s permission for the same’. Bedas of Halagali

Anti-colonial uprisings in Karnataka 1800-1860

By admin

Created 11/26/2012 – 01:04

Submitted by admin on Mon, 11/26/2012 – 01:04

The micro-stories from different parts of Karnataka during the six decades of 19th century (1800-1860) give us an indication of the wide-spread nature of anti-colonial struggles in different parts of India. Clearly they had spread among commoners and gentry and a national anti-colonial consciousness had seeped down to the remotest village. It is unfortunate that we in India have not studied the facts regarding the 1857 revolt nor have we digested the lessons from it. Our conception is dominated by the British narrative. In short, they painted the revolt as a feudal reaction to the modernity of industrial Britain. British historians took great pains to paint all the leaders and heroes of 1857 as decadent, two-faced, selfish, reactionary, turn-coats who were fighting against loss of privileges and had no conception of national consciousness or peoples? welfare. More over according to British historians, to carry out their personal agendas, the leaders inflamed religious fanaticism and misled people who were otherwise happy to be ruled by the British. Of course they also displayed British colonial ?even handedness and fair play?, by pointing out that there was some disaffection in the population and even the troops of the British Indian Army caused by the high handedness of some Company officials, however things became fine after the Company was replaced by

the British Crown through Queen Victoria?s Proclamation in 1858 and ?the rule of law? was established”.

However a remarkably rich literature exists in various Indian languages in the form of ballads, folk songs and legends and even documents and reports, which is not accessible to English readers. An excellent beginning in giving the Indian point of view was made by V D Savarkar in his book ?The Indian war of independence 1857?, published underground in 1907. It has been followed up in the last 20 years by various micro studies and finally by a significant two volume work, ?War of Civilisations: 1857 AD? By Amaresh Misra.

This article tries to put together some highlights of anti-colonial struggles in the post-Hyder-Tipu-Karnataka from 1800-1860. In 1779 itself Hyder and Tipu had tried to put together a confederacy and worked out an agreement with Nana Fadanvis, Janoji Bhosle, Mahadji Scindhia and Nizam according to which Hyder was supposed to attack the Arcot area and Madras, Janoji Bhosle on Bengal, Nana Fadanvis and Mahadji

Scindhia on Bombay and the Nizam on Circar districts. While Hyder and Tipu went ahead with the plan the others did not. If this grand plan had succeeded then perhaps India would have been rid of British colonial rule 80 years before 1857. However the narrow concerns of some rulers enabled the East India Company to meticulously play on petty selfishness and rule a continental sized diverse country like India for almost

two hundred years.

In this article we have put together some highlights of anti-colonial uprisings in Karnataka between 1800 and 1860. The great struggle between Hyder Ali-Tipu Sultan and the British was already over by 1799 with Tipu?s death in the 4th Anglo-Mysore war. The micro-stories from different parts of Karnataka in those six decades tell us how wide-spread the anti-colonial struggles were in different parts of India and how they had spread among commoners and gentry and how deep the consciousness had seeped down to the remotest village.

On the occasion of Golden Jubilee of the formation of Karnataka State many historians have documented to a considerable degree the colonial history of Karnataka. They have recorded dozens of armed uprisings in Karnataka prior to 1857 besides the most famous one led by Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan. One can see concrete linkages of these revolts with the uprising in the North. Many letters of request of support written by Nanasaheb to various principalities in North and coastal Karnataka, which were responded to by local kings have also come to light.

After the defeat and Tipu?s death in the battle field in the fourth Anglo-Mysore war (1799), Karnataka was literally torn asunder between the British presidencies of Bombay and Madras; Nizam of Hyderabad and Marathas. A small dependency was created under the tutelage of Wodeyars as the kingdom of Mysore, which increased the land revenue and the burden on peasantry in an arbitrary manner to satisfy British demands. This led to uprisings in kingdom of Mysore as well as areas of Karnataka which had now been brought under, Nizam, Maratha and British rule. A few of them are briefly described below:

Dhondiya Wagh (1800):

One of the first to revolt against the new arrangement was Dhondiya Wagh. He was born in Chennagiri near Mysore. He joined Hyder Ali?s cavalry in 1780. Later he developed differences with Tipu, who incarcerated him. Hence British soldiers found Dhondiya in Srirangapattana?s prison when they ransacked the city after the death of Tipu. Dhondiya was released, who however immediately vanished and tried to gather the demobilised Tipu?s soldiers. Very soon he built up a significant armed force with a cavalry etc.

He kept moving from territory to territory and capturing small towns and forts that had been taken over by Marathas, British and the Nizam. Governor General, Richard Wellesley was exasperated by Dhondiya’s revolt and assigned his brother Arthur Wellesley (Later to be known as Duke of Wellington, who defeated Napolean at Waterloo) to suppress Dhondiya?s revolt. He sent troops not only from Madras but even

summoned some from Bengal.

The theatre of Dhondiya’s war encompassed forts at Chitradurg, Savanur, Shimoga, Bidanur, Honnali, Harihar, Shikaripur, Kittur, Londa, Ranebennur, Kundgol, Shirahatti, Kunigal, Dharwad, Gadag, Raichur, Hungund etc. Practically it encompassed all of Central and North Karnataka. He was supported by the people and smaller principalities (samsthana) that were discontented with the British. Tipu’s son Fateh Hyder supported him and Tipu?s former soldiers were the core of his forces which at one point grew to

over 70,000 with a 30,000 strong cavalry. The British troops were led by Col, Stevenson, Col Wellesly, Col Tolin, Col Mclean, Col Darlymple. The heroic campaign lasted from June 1799 to September 1800. In the end Dhondiya was cornered by British, Maratha and Nizam?s troops and fell for a bullet in the battle at Konegal.

British historians have painted him as “rogue bandit?, whereas Dhondiya himself had the title of ‘lord of both the worlds’ among his people. Edward Clive a British officer later admired his organising ability and said ?what started as an anarchic revolt became a major international war?. Nationalist historians have described him as, ?a person with great determination and a magnetic personality?.

Venkatadri Nayak (1803)

Aigur (Ballam) Venkatadri Nayak was another leader who started his revolt when the British were tied down by Dhondiya Wagh. His father Krishnappa Nayak, was made the ruler of Aigur by Hyder Ali. But Krishnappa betrayed him and joined the Marathas in 1792 and helped the British. After the war he was scared of Tipu and ran away to Kodagu (Coorg). However Tipu did not punish him but instead reinstated him. On Tipu’s defeat in 1799, Krishnappa?s son Venkatadri Nayak became the ruler of Aigur. He was ambitious and started expanding his territory. Venkatadri Nayak captured Subrahmanya Ghat, a crucial pass in the Sahyadris with access to Mangalore. He attacked the British troops at Arakere and also defeated a 2500 strong army sent by Wodeyar of Mysore.

Venkatadri Nayak came to be known as the Bull Raja and Ballam Raja. Wellesley took his revolt very seriously and made an elaborate plan to capture him by getting troops from Mangalore as well as Bombay, Bidnur and Sondha. The British tried to organise all the Patels of surrounding villages against him and also terrorised the population by executing many of his sympathisers. They generally followed a scorched earth policy to prevent him getting any food supplies. The campaign lasted nearly three years and finally on February 10, 1803 he and his 6 followers were arrested when they were in search of food supplies. All the insurgents were later executed. Thus two great warriors were suppressed by the British with Machiavellian tactics using the Mysore Wodeyars, Marathas and the Nizam.

Koppal Veerappa (1819):

As mentioned earlier Karnataka was torn asunder between Nizam, Marathas and the British after Tipu’s defeat. The North eastern parts were taken over by Nizam, who put unbearable burden on the peasantry. The Nizam was totally under British control with the Subsidiary Alliance signed in 1800. As a result of which the Nizam had to pay for the British Subsidiary Force stationed to ‘protecthim’ and even accept the humiliating condition that the British would decide who the top bureaucrat the Diwan of Hyderabad would be. As Nizam’s unbridled oppression with heavy taxation increased, there was no way but for the peasantry to revolt. One such revolt was led by Veerappa in Koppal in 1818. Veerapaa was a small landowner in Koppal, he built a force and captured Koppal and Bahadur (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3SWXcLH0UA [1]) forts built by Hyder Ali 40 years earlier. British forces led by Major Doughton and Brig General Pritzler rushed to crush Veerappa and Nizam’s general Idruskhan also joined them. Veerappa fought valiantly for five days with only 500 men and died in battle.

Even though Veerappa’s rebellion was confined to a small area around Koppal, it represented a popular peasant revolt and inspired many more in the region.

Deshmukhs of Bidar (1820)

After Tipu’s defeat the remnants of the old Bahmani Kingdom of Bidar too were incorporated into Nizam’s rule and burdened with heavy taxation. As a result revolts started appearing in 1820 in Udgir. Using Suliyal as their base the local Deshmukhs led by Shivalingayya, Tirumal Rao and Meghsham led this revolt.

Hence this revolt is known as the revolt of Deshmukhs. The Nizam relied on British help to suppress the Deshmukhs. Lt. Gen. Sutherland was assigned for the same and he defeated them in a campaign lasting two months and imprisoned them.

Sindagi Revolt (1824)

The popular revolt against the British spread to Bijapur too and in Sindagi, 40 km from Bijapur the local people led by Chidambar Dikshit, his son Diwakar Dikshit and Diwakar?s comrades Shettyappa, Raoji and Rastiya declared sovereignty of people of Sindagi. They took over Sindagi Taluk and boldly declared that ‘British Raj does not exist here and we anyway do not recognise it. We are sovereign’. British could not

tolerate this challenge to their rule in such a brazen way even if though it was confined to a Taluk in North Karnataka. They sent forces led by Lt. Stevenson to capture the leaders. However the forces could not locate the leaders. A traitor Annappa Patne however showed the hiding place to the British. The local people who came to know the same lynched Annappa on the spot. However the British were able to capture the leaders and imprison them. The revolt was confined to a Taluk, but showed advanced

consciousness.

Rani Chennamma and the Kittur Revolt (1824)

Rani Chennamma of Kittur is a veritable icon in Karnataka and was perhaps one of the first women leaders who fought against British Raj. To this day she inspires people. She was born in the Desai family of Kakati, a small village in the wealthy kingdom of Kittur, which stood around 5 km north of Belgavi in Karnataka. In her youth she received training in horse riding, sword fighting and archery. She became the queen of Kittur

on her marriage to Shivalinga Rudra Sarja, of the Desai family of Kittur. Kittur was a principality (samsthana) covering large parts of Dharwad and Belgavi districts and was paying tributes to Marathas after the fall of Tipu. However after the fall of Marathas in 1818, Kittur came under British rule. Shivalinga Rudra Sarja did not have children and when he fell sick, he asked his close confidant Gurusiddappa to choose a boy from the surrounding region to be adopted as the heir to the throne. Shivalingappa was such a boy who was then trained in appropriate manner, renamed Mallasarja and adopted as the heir to Kittur. Shivalinga Rudra Sarja died soon after on September 11, 1824.

Chennamma started ruling the kingdom in the name of the minor prince. However Thackeray the then collector and political agent in Dharwad arbitrarily refused to recognise this and asked the British Governor, Elphinstone in Bombay to take over the kingdom under paramountcy?a ruse three decades later formalised by Dalhousie as the Doctrine of Lapse.

In a clear act of provocation he declared that the treasury of the kingdom was not safe and hence brought in his own guards and administrators to ?protect? the same. He even left a few soldiers to ‘guard’ the main gate of Kittur Fort. These provocations enraged the people of Kittur. Chennamma patiently tried to get justice and sent her emissaries to talk to the ‘Company Sarkar’ (British East India Company) and at

the same time started strengthening the fort and carrying out various military preparations anticipating a conflict. She called all the loyal fighters from the surrounding region and discussed the situation with them, sought their advice and loyalty. Thackeray was surprised by the Rani?s gumption. He invited the Rani for talks, which she refused. While Thackeray was gathering his forces the fighters of Kittur readied themselves inside the fort and carried out a daring attack on the British forces. Chennamma directed the battle from the ramparts of the fort. On her orders, Balasaheb Sayyad, Rani Chennamma’s loyal sharpshooter, killed Thackeray. Thus Thackeray came to a sorry end on October 23, 1824 and along with him two more officers Capt.. Black Stevenson and Lt. Dicton also died. British forces were roundly defeated and many were taken prisoners by the insurgents.

This was a great setback for British Raj and its cultivated image as an invincible force in the region. They soon gathered forces from Sholapur, Mysore and Bombay and neared Kittur. Rani sent them a message that if they attack Kittur then all British prisoners of war will be put to death and then the people of Kittur will fight to death. Taken aback, Chaplin, Commissioner of Deccan sent a message that if the British prisoners are released and Sardar Gurusiddappa is handed over then the status quo will prevail. Chennamma refused to hand over Gurusiddappa but released British prisoners as an act of good faith. However Chaplin had no intention of keeping his end of the deal and sent his forces under the leadership of Lt.. Col Deacon to siege Kittur on Dec. 3, 1824. The fighters of Kittur fought bravely for three days, however due to treachery they found that their gun powder had been mixed with cow dung and made useless. The fort fell.

Rani Chennamma escaped with the younger Rani Veeramma through a secret passage towards Sangolli where she had supporters.

However British were able to intercept her on her way and capture her. She was imprisoned in Bailhongal prison. After incarceration of four years Chennamma died in prison on February 3, 1829. The Kittur countryside was full of rebellion for over five years. The leader of this rebellion was Rani Chennamma’s ardent admirer Rayanna of Sangolli.

Sangolli Rayanna (1829)

Rayanna was born in a shepherd family in Sangolli, a village in Belgavi district. The family had a fighting tradition and was loyal to the Desais of Kittur. Rayanna fought with the Kittur army in 1824 and was captured by the British after the defeat of Rani. However soon he was released as a part of British pacification program. His family members had generous tax free lands given as Inam by the Desais, for their earlier bravery and loyalty. However the Company Sarkar now increased the taxes and eventually confiscated his lands. In November-December 1829, when he was restless, some of his friends invited him to lead a revolt against the British. Rayanna soon started a guerrilla war suitable to the surrounding landscape. He gathered a compact group of fighters and started attacking treasuries and rich land owners who were British collaborators. He seized mortgage and debt documents of peasantry from them and burnt them. He soon gathered over 1000 fighters and harassed the British and their collaborators relentlessly.

Realising that it was not possible to capture Rayanna by conventional warfare, British adopted other means to do so. They sent in some spies into his army and caught him unarmed when he was bathing in a river. He and his associates were executed and many sent abroad for life imprisonment. Interestingly though British rewarded the traitors who betrayed Rayanna very generously through land grants, the entire community socially boycotted them. Even today the legend has it that those families are

cursed for generations and if anyone goes to their homes for a lunch or dinner as a guest then the food in their plates will turn into maggots!

Rayanna’s revolt inspired other loyalists of Kittur too to rise up time and again. Gurusiddappa, Shankaranna, Gajapati, Savai Shetti, Kotagi, Shaikh Suleiman, Bheemanna, Kaddigudda Balanna, Waddar Yellannaetcled several uprisings against the British in support of Kittur for almost a decade. The rebels executed the traitors who had betrayed Rayanna and rose up time and gain demonstrating their love and pride for the Rani Chennamma of Kittur.

Nagar Peasant Revolt (1830-31)

Nagar comprised of the taluks of Sagar, Nagar, Kowlidurga, Koppa, Lakwally, Sorab, Shikarpur, Shivamogga, Honnaly, Harihar, Chennagiri, Tarikere, Kadur, and Chickamagalur. Besides, there were 5277 villages, 1277 hamlets. Its population was 459,842. The Ikkeri dynasty ruled this region and gained respect and prestige through an independent distinguished rule from the Vijaynagar times to late 18th century when they were taken over by Hyder Ali and Tipu. The region had a fighting tradition. When the Wodeyars and Diwan Poornaiah were installed in Mysore by East India Company after Tipu?s defeat, the region came under heavy taxation. In fact nearly 60% of the Kingdom?s revenues were coming from this region alone. After suffering from the duo?s arbitrariness for three decades, 1800-1830, the region was ripe for rebellion against the Wodeyars and their protectors the ‘Company Sarkar’.

The administration was entirely corrupt and filled with nepotism and casteism. The local Nayaks and Patels and ryots were fed up of this state of affairs and the heavy tax burden. This situation was utilised by Boodi Basavappa, who assumed leadership of the uprising and declared himself the new ruler. He declared sovereignty and pardoned the heavy taxes and peasant debt to Sahukars (money lenders).

The result was one of the largest peasant revolts in colonial India. According to Dr.. Siddalinga Swamy, the greatest burden to cultivators was an advance payment of money to the government before the grain was harvested. As no renter, or cultivator had money to advance, he was obliged to take recourse to the Sahukars, who advanced money at the rate of two percent per month and extracted a present of five percent upon the advance. For the second and third instalment, a present was not demanded; but when the fourth was to be paid the crops were to be mortgaged. Most lenders insisted upon an immediate sale, and became the purchasers themselves at the bazar price, which would then be lower than at any other period. Many debt burdened ryots flocked to the government to make complaints against Sahukars. But the government were powerful. The Government also owed large sums of money to Sahukars. In February 1826 the peasant debt to Sahukarsin Nagar was estimated at 4 lakh.

This sorry state of affairs depicted a weak and ignorant government managed by corrupt officers, unable to correct the sources of evil inherent in it. As the Wodeyar?s Government was corrupt, no control was exercised over the district officers. Naturally the people were enraged by the unjust and arbitrary acts of those officers. There was no process in the country which required public servants to hear the complaints of the ryots. This was the fertile ground for the insurrection in 1830.

Taking advantage of this, Basavappa spread the news that he had assumed the sovereignty of the country and promised the ryots full remission of all balance debt. A reduction of the Government tax demand on their lands was also promised, if they would espouse his cause. Many inflammatory speeches were made by supporters of Boodi Basavappa in August 1830, asking ryots to join them. One of his supporters, made an unsuccessful attempt to capture the fort of Anandapur in Nagar province. On 23rd August the ryots of Nagar circulated a letter in the other fouzdaris, inviting other ryots to assemble in a koota (assembly). On 23rd September the ryots of Chennagiri refused to pay their taxes, and other taluks in Nagar fouzdari followed them. In December, Fouzdar Viraraj Urs employed troops to disperse demonstrators at

Holehonnur. The ryots of the Chitradurg and Bangalore Divisions also refused to pay taxes and joined the movement.

In the meantime efforts were made by Diwan Venkat Raj in Bangalore and Chitradurg Divisions to pacify the ryots. The Maharaja himself under took to tour some of the taluks in December 1830. However he was humiliated by the ryots in Channarayapattana and in many other places.

The rebels gave a good fight to the troops. They captured some of the forts in Nagar, and in many places they repulsed the Mysore troops.

On the 21st of December 1830 a Proclamation was issued directing all persons carrying bones and Neem leaves (the symbols of insurrection) to be seized, tried and if convicted, to be hanged. On the following day instructions were given to the fouzdar of Bangalore to fire on the protesters and to catch one or two protesters in each taluk and hang them to spread terror among the populace. Many of the rebels were caught and hanged. Some of the rebels? noses and ears were cut off resulting in several persons being badly disfigured.

The Raja said that this measure was indispensable to put down the rebellion. As a result hundreds of ryots were hanged throughout the territory. The Raja asserted that in ordering executions he did not act of his own accord, but in compliance with the advice of the British Resident. The reverses to the Mysore troops led to the employment of Company?s forces to quell the revolt. On 31st May 1831, the stronghold of the rebels, Nagar, was captured and the revolt was practically quelled. But stray bands of insurgency continued till 1832 when it was completely suppressed.

The rebellion was spontaneous and did not have a visionary leadership but it however demonstrated the widespread anger among different sections of Kannadigas against the British rule and as well as their puppets like the Wodeyars and Poornaiah. The Company however used the occasion to further strip any element of autonomy from the Wodeyars and Governor General William Bentinck, appointed commissioners to administer the region.

Coastal Uprisings (1830-31)

There were widespread uprisings against heavy taxation in the coastal regions of Karnataka. These regions had first protested the taxes earlier in 1809-1810. The later agitations learnt from this experience and were consequently more audacious.

The documents of East India Company have called these revolts as Koota revolts. Kootaswere general assemblies of people of a village or town, where they asserted their sovereignty, and hence a form of direct democracy.

The mass struggle started in early 1830 and assumed a host of forms. The most important of these, however, was the koota or simply ‘gathering’. The mass awakening was ignited through their assembly into kootas which was a broad forum to organize the masses. While the struggles might have been spontaneous, the form was quite well developed.

The signs of the peasant unrest could be seen in the closing months of 1830, when the ryots gave general petitions complaining of their losses. But they developed and came to the fore in the beginning months of 1831. The ryots of Kasargod, Kumbla, Mogral, Manjeshwar, Bungra Manjeshawar and Talapady sent general arzees (petitions) and complaints of their losses to Dickinson the Collector of South Kanara.

In their petitions, the ryots not only complained about the harsh revenue assessment of November 1830, but they also demanded remission to them all at a uniform rate. In the second stage, beginning of January 1831, the ryots started their Kootas or Assemblages.

It was in Bekal (Kasargod) that the Kootas started in the first week of January 1831 and within a few days they spread to the northern parts of Kanara. Barkur, Brahmavar, Buntwal, Madhur, Manjeshwar, Mulki, Kadri, Kumbla, Malluly (Malali), Wamanjoor,

Mogral, Udyawar, Uppinangadi and Vittal were some of the important places where the ryots of the respective regions had assembled in Kootas or assemblages. The Kootas extended to North Kanara also. Manjunatha temple at Kadri was the centre of these peasant uprisings, where the Grand Koota [MahaKoota] was organised towards the end of January 1831. Ryots from other important centres of the district such as Kasargod and Buntwal came and met at Kadri. The Venkataramana temple at Basrur, the

Mahamayi temple at Mangalore, the temple at Manjeswar and another temple at Wamanjoor were other important centres of the Koota movement.

In order to organise these Kootas, the ryots assigned one Patel and two head ryots in each of the villages. When any aspect was discussed and plan or action was proposed in the Kootas, these leaders disseminated them to the ryots in the villages. Further, each of the Kootas had its own leaders and all of them met and discussed (at the Grand Koota in Kadri). The organisers of these Kootas also made use of a ‘Secret Council’ or a secretariat. The object of this Council was to maintain the secrecy of the whole organisational affair of the Kootas. However, the result of the deliberations of this Council was communicated to the various assemblies or Kootas. Thus the Secret Council played the role of a linking and organising body in these peasant uprisings. It in fact acted as a think-tank of the rebellion. Further, anonymous pamphlets were made use of by the leaders to spread their ideas and programmes among the ryots.

The participants in these Kootas at times made bold to attack Government servants. Before Dickinson left Kundapura for Mangalore at the end of January 1831 he received reports from the Tahsildar of Barkur that the ryots of that taluk had assembled in Koota and had assaulted some of the public servants. The report of the Tahsildar of Barkur says that a Magane Shanbhog, who was deputed to read a government proclamation was severely assaulted. Again at Mulki the ryots roughed up an Ameen who had been sent to read them a proclamation issued by the Government. The ryots were determined to refuse to give taxes to the Government, until a fresh settlement was made, and their mood was so defiant that they unhesitatingly attacked those public servants whom they feared not long back. The growing sense of unity among themselves and faith in their organisational strength had emboldened them to take such postures of defiance. The peasant rebellion that surfaced in the month of November 1830 continued up to the end of March 1831. It was after Cameron?s promise (March 1831) to the riots that their petitions would be considered and remissions would be made after an examination of their losses to redress their hardships that they dispersed and stopped organising the Kootas. Thus by April 1831 the rumblings of Koota

rebellions died down.

Kodagu (Coorg) Revolts (1833-37)

After the defeat of Tipu, the East India Company could not directly rule Kodagu. They had to restore the kingdom to the traditional kings of Haleri dynasty who were earlier displaced by Hyder and Tipu. However these Haleri kings were fiercely independent and particularly Chikka Veera Rajendra (1820-34) was a proud and independent king. He refused to follow British diktat and instead armed his population and built up his forces to resist any British attack. He corresponded with Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab and sought his support against the British.

There were constant skirmishes between him and the British administration, which was based in Bangalore and Mysore and finally a war between the British and Kodava forces was inevitable. Despite brave fight put up by the Kodavas the British were able to capture the Madikeri fort through treachery in 1834 and depose the king. He was sent in Exile to Bangalore, Kashi and later London.

However the fighting people of Kodagu did not take this lying down and several revolts took place. These were led by Swami Aparampaar, Kalyan Swami and Putta Basava. All these fighters claimed to be heirs to Kodagu throne one after another and sought support from the people in their fight against the British in the name of Haleri dynasty. Each one of them was given due respect and recognition by the people as true heirs of Kodagu and thousands joined them. All of them sought to throw out British from Kodagu, cancel the taxes imposed by them and fought for an independent life for Kodavas. These uprisings went on from 1834 to 1837.

Other revolts before 1857

There were several other revolts which were local and minor in dimension but which had a lot of impact on the psyche of the people of North Karnataka between 1840 and 1857. One of them was in Badami, a town in today?s Bagalkot district, which has an ancient history and was the capital of Chalukyas who ruled much of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh between 6th and 8th centuries CE. An army built by loyalists of the

deposed king of Satara took over the fort and established their rule in 1839-40. They were suppressed by British Army and the leaders sentenced to death and life imprisonment. Similarly there were uprisings in Nippani, currently in Belgavi district, in 1840-41, where over 300 Arab fighters under the leadership of local Zamindar, Raghunath Rao attacked the fort and took it over. Later they were suppressed by the Company Army. In 1849 the Paleygar of Chitradurga rose up unsuccessfully. Revolts led by Lingappa in Bidar in 1852 harassed the British for several months and he had captured several forts.

Uprisings in Karnataka during Ghadar of 1857

There were several uprisings in Karnataka during the Ghadar in 1857 and went on till 1860. Unlike the Gangetic belt, where the revolt was signalled by mutiny of British Indian Army, which were then followed by revolts led by Nanasaheb, Zeenat Mahal, Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Kunwar Singh et al, the Karnataka revolts were popular uprisings led by local peasant leaders, or small principalities who linked their local

struggles with the larger national one that was being fought under Bahadur Shah Zafar and Nana Saheb’s leadership. The area of uprising covered the entire districts from the coastal Canara (present day Karwar and Mangalore) in the Madras Presidency, to the eastern Raichur and Koppal districts under the Nizam; from Bijapurand Dharwadin the North in Bombay Presidency to Sringeri and Hassan in the south. Notable among them are the uprisings of: Bedasin Halagali near Bijapur; revolt of Nargund near Gadag

and Dharwad; revolt of Mundargi Bhimaraya; revolt of Venkatappa Nayak of Surpur near Gulburga and Supa revolts near Karwar.

Bedas of Halagali

One of the fighting tribes which fought the British tooth and nail from 1820?s to 1942 and formed the backbone of many uprisings in the Deccan (comprising Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra) were Bedas who descended from hunters. They have been called Ramoshis, Berad, or Bedas, Boya, Dorabiddu and Valmiki in different areas.

Bearing arms to protect themselves and the community and their king was part of their life and they did it with great pride. The prince of Mudhol had accepted British overlordship and the Bedas in the area were seething with dissatisfaction. The East India Company announced on 11 September, 1857 that all Indians should disarm, submit their arms to the company and then get licences to carry arms. This was simply out of question for Bedas. Hence when the Company Sarkar’s edict was sought to be implemented by the King of Mudhol principality, the Bedas of Halagali and surrounding area considered it a great insult and defied him. They did not allow any official to enter their villages. They did not even allow an arms. Census to be taken and did not accept the offer that they will not be actually disarmed but will all be given licences to bear arms. They said, ‘Bearing arms is our birth right and why should we take anybody’s permission for the same’.

The revolt, which started in a small village called Halagali, kept snowballing and started spreading to surrounding areas. The British Raj saw it as a serious threat to its rule and when the local ruler was not able to suppress it, Major Malcolm summoned the southern Maratha regiment let by Lt. Col Seton Karr. The bedas, though vastly outnumbered, fought fiercely for their rights. The British followed a scorched earth policy in the region and after the final battle captured 290 Bedas and hanged 19 leaders of the uprising in Mudhol market in December 1857.

Nargund Bandaya (revolt)

The principality of Nargund used to be under the Peshwas after the defeat of Tipu. After the defeat of Peshwas in 1818, it came under British overlordship. Bhaskar Rao Bhave also known as Baba Saheb rose to the throne of Nargund in 1842 and administered this region efficiently. However he did not have a son and told the British that he would adopt a son to create an heir for Nargund. The British refused permission and asked him to return some of the land received as Inam. This enraged Baba Saheb and he got in touch with several rulers in Karnataka like Mundaragi Bhimaraya, Surpur Venkatappa Nayakaand many others. He was aware of the north Indian uprising and wanted to time his revolt also in June of 1857. However he postponed the date at the last moment. Meanwhile the British came across his correspondence with other rulers due to some traitors and informers. They were alarmed by it but Baba Saheb’s external conduct

with them was friendly and proper and hence they were lulled into not taking immediate action. However, when they came to know that he had accumulated a large amount of artillery and ammunition in his fort in Nargund, they asked him to deposit the same in Dharwad. He readily agreed and sent them with an escort to Dharwad. Simultaneously he secretly organised an attack on the convoy and brought them back to Nargund, while claiming innocence. In May 1858 when the British sent a force to prevent his networking with other rulers, he attacked them and brought the decapitated head of officer Manson, the head of British force sent to suppress him, to his fort and displayed it to the people. Meanwhile he discovered treachery within his fort leading to sabotage and adulteration of gun powder with cow dung. While he went to attack the fort in Amargol near Hubballi, British came to Nargund with a large force. Baba Saheb had over 2500 soldiers within the fort who fought valiantly, when the defeat was imminent, Baba Saheb consulted his comrades and decided to escape to a nearby forest. However in the forest near Torgal he was betrayed by some camp followers. This led to his capture and later execution in Belagavi on June 12, 1858. Nargund Bandaya is a legend in North Karnataka.

Interestingly, when a large peasant movement started in 1980 in North Karnataka, in the Malaprabha basin, it took a massive turn due to brutal police firing on agitating peasants in Nargund and the vast mass peasant movement that developed came to be known as the second Nargund Bandaya.

Surpur Venkatappa Nayak

Surpur or Shorapuris situated in the hills, about 50 km west of Yadgiri, a district headquarters. It was ruled by Beda Nayak kings who had a fighting tradition. They had resisted even the mighty Mughals under Aurangzeb. Later they were harassed by the Nizam, the Peshwas and the British and the kingdom was reduced in size toonly Surpur and Shapur taluks. When Raja Krishnappa Nayak died in 1842, prince Venkatappa Nayak the 4th,was only 8 years old. So the British created regency where the prince was enthroned but Meadows Taylor a British administrator was appointed as the Regent. Taylor was a scholaradministrator and greatly improved the condition of the kingdom in terms of treasury, accounts, clearing the old debts owed to the Nizam and Peshwa, public works, irrigation etc. In 1853 Taylor handed over the reins to 19 year old Venkatappa Nayak and retreated into the background. In 1857, British got wind that some representatives of Nana Saheb came to Surpur and had secret meetings with young Raja Venkatappa Nayak. In the meanwhile, Mahipal Singh, a rebel from 1857 revolt, was captured by the British and he disclosed to them that he was carrying out instructions of Raja Venkatappa Nayak. The Company had actually administered the kingdom under regency and the King had a close almost filial relationship with Col Meadows Taylor. Even then, the British were very suspicious of Bedas in general as they were playing an important anti-colonial role. So they started interfering more and

more in the affairs of the kingdom. Finally in February 1858, they sent troops led by Capt. Windham and Maj Hughes to attack Surpur, but the fort of Surpur was very strong and a fierce battle ensued. When they were outnumbered, the Raja escaped to Hyderabad and tried to get Nizam and his Diwan’s support for the uprising. Unfortunately however, they handed him over to the British. The Raja was sentenced to life imprisonment and while he was being transported to Chenglepet jail from Sikandarabad, he was killed. The Raja Venkatappa Nayak of Surpur was a lynchpin in a coordinated uprising covering Miraj, Kolhapur, Koppal, Raichur and Surpur and hence the British were greatly relieved by his defeat and the kingdom was given to Nizam for the services rendered to the East India Company.

Mundaragi Bhimaraya

Bhimaraya of Mundaragi is a legendary hero of Ghadar of 1857 in Karnataka. There are many lavanis (ballads) written about him. He was not a Raja but a commoner with extra ordinary vision and organizing and mobilising ability. His father was a local judge and Bhimaraya himself served as a Mamledar (a land revenue official) in Bellary, Hoovina Hadagali and Harapana Halli. He could not stand the exploitation of peasantry under British rule and in protest he resigned and came back to Benne Halli, his village. He had observed the development of anti-colonial movement in Karnataka and networked with various likeminded leaders. Nana Saheb?s call to the people of India and all Desais, Deshmukhs, Deshpandes, Jahagirdars, Patels and Kulkarnis of Karnataka greatly influenced him. He had sent many emissaries in the garb of Sadhus and Swamijis to contact others. He is also rumoured to have secretly visited Bangalore and written a letter in vain to the Maharaja of Mysore, Krishna Raja Wodeyar 3rd. Bhimaraya encouraged people in various areas to refuse to pay taxes to Company Sarkar. He contacted various groups of Beda fighters and started accumulating arms and creating ammunition dumps at various places. On 23 May 1858 the fouzdar of Dambal raided one such arms cache and sealed it. On hearing the news Bhimaraya came with his army attacked the armoury and took back all his arms and ammunition and shifted to a safer place in Shirahatti. Then he started raiding British armouries in various places. Many local land owners and kings supported Bhimaraya and joined him in the revolt. When British took Bhimarayas wife and kids as hostages, Bhimaraya came with his army freed his family and went to the fort in Koppal and prepared to fight with a large stock of food, arms and ammunition. British gathered a large force from their stations at

Dharwad, Raichur, Hyderabad and Bellary and marched on Koppal fort. After a fierce fight Bhimaraya fell to British bullets on 1 June, 1858. British carried out brutal reprisals against Bhimaraya?s associates and supporters.

Canara Revolts

The district of Canara consisted of present Mangalore (Dakshina Kannada) and Karwar (Uttara Kannada) districts and after Tipu, they were made a part of Madras presidency. However these coastal districts were thickly forested and mountainous and the large distance from Madras led to further reasons for a weak British colonial state in the area. As uprisings in coastal Maharashtra spread during 1857, Canara too became a refuge for revolutionaries and also a centre of resistance. Here the revolutionaries who came

from Savantwadi played a major role. They also tried to get support from some Goans as well as Portugese and moved into Khanapur, Supa, Ulavi, Dandeli etc. They were also joined by Siddis (African slaves brought to India by Portugese and who had escaped to the dense forests of Canara near Karwar).

Though many British historians have said that these revolts were caused by the increased land and salt taxes, it is clear that they were inspired by the stories of 1857 uprising in the North and were waiting for Nanasaheb to move southwards. Despite the death and capture of many leaders, new ones kept springing up in this region for nearly three years. Finally British divided the district into two and attached Karwar to

Bombay presidency in 1862. This brief account of anti-colonial uprisings in Karnataka suffices to understand the deep felt hatred of British rule in every corner of India. Karnataka threw up its own heroes and legends in resistance like Dhondiya Wagh, Swami Aparampar, Rani Chennamma, Sangolli Rayanna, Nargund Baba Saheb,

Mundargi Bimaraya, Surpur Venkatappa Nayak, Bedas of Halagali and others. Moreover, the revolts and networks clearly demonstrate the development of a broad national consciousness among Indian people much before the so called modern era, despite India being composed of many nationalities, languages, religious sects, cultures and castes.

The documents beautifully describes many of the uprisings against british east india company in karnataka from 1800 to 1857. While in normal mode, we will feel it as fight against Britishers, we have to see these incidents from other angle.

First, all these revolts indicate the kind of political power structure we had. Every samasthanam excercised an autonomy, and managed everything itself. They only paid tribute to the kings.

The important point to note here is that every temple today were once centre of such autonomous samasthanams.. so when we look at history of our temples, we should look for the history of that particular region…

For those Chennai Vaasis, Chennai belong to Thondai Dhesam, which was originally organised in to 24 kottams, and 78 naadus.. Eg: Valluvar Koattam, Pulal Koattam etc.. see the chennai temples in terms of these koattams (கோட்டம்) and NOT in terms of T-Nagar, Besant Nagar etc.. Which nadu/koattam does Mylapore and vadapalani belongs to?Did we ever had thought of these?

Now coming to my point.. When muslims invaded india, they attacked the larger kingdoms, but retained the smaller autonomous regions as it is for the tributes received from them. Due to this the social cum political structure remained the same and is NOT altered much. ( Chennapattinam was one such autonomous region, which was converted in to metro after british conquest. The Panagal Park is another such entity converted in T-Nagar.. so imagine the drastic change in social structure.. from hindu mode to Corporate mode.. )

However in case of the british east india company, these fundamental units itself was dismantled and imposed with their alien system. The Company was NOT interested in tributes, rather they wanted market for their products and hence started altering the political and social constructs. This is nothing but a rape of our civilization, which still continues. Pls remember, when whole of Singur Village was handed over to tata, it is repeat of what was done by British East india company.

So if any one wants an answer on how our hindu society which fought bravely against muslims for thousands of years, became retarded and immobile now, this is the reason. Our fundamental autonomous administrative units were dismantled and everyone was made to run for survival.

Without an organisational unit, no society can fight back or protect itself.. (Think of the current state of LTTE now..)

And we have no other option but to submit ourselves to the corporate system imposed by britishers. And these modern corporate system is NOT owned by us. We all are just slaves, doing what is instructed. After serving the western masters for whole day, we are shouting about hindu resurgence, dharma, etc etc etc only in the spare time.. This is nothing but a scream of the subdued women who could not accept the daily rape happening. (i am sorry for such harsh analogy).

So my question is this.. How long are we going to scream like this, by living within this alien corporate system? As the year passes, this scream would be fainter and fainter and atlast will be no more heard. Today, we all have living memories of our traditional civilization, and hence we are able to atleast feel, that we are being raped. But the next generation would be moulded completely within this alien corporate environment. Just like the children of the Mumbai Red Light area get used to prostitution.

The Metros, cities and towns, are all designed for these corporate system, and NOT for our traditional social setup. When the whole of india is urbanised, the 5000 year old civilization will become history like greeks, romans, mayan and inca.

One more thing we need to understand is that mere group of people doesnt constitute a society.. rather, it is the way in which they are organised, makes a society.. The traditional society was organised on traditional administrative structure.. and without protecting that traditional organisational structure, we cannot protect our civilization or history or dharma..

But what all hindu thinkers and intellectuals want is mere crowd.. that all hindus should get all comforts, do bajans, and think they are hindus.. that’s enough.. they are seeing Hindus as individuals.. and hindu society as some thing that comprises of all such individuals.. that’s it.. Does any one every able to explain, how do their utopian hindu society is organised? Never..

So essentially, what we are aiming for is, something that fits within current corporate system which atomises us by providing all sorts of comfort.. Our temples, were converted in to church kind of thing meant for personal worship.. our rituals (like thread ceremony) become meaningless.. our temple rituals (like abishekams) also become meaningless.. the temple archakas has been converted in to Hindu Fathers 🙂 :).. (ie, just like fathers read bible quotes, the archakas SAY mantrams.. its just performance you see..).. and our mantrams converted in to Biblical Phrases..

In total, we have entirely lost the very essence of our civilization.. the very aanma of our society.. we have totally lost the very purpose of our living (ie, life style)..

So every one must introspect.. For what kind of society are we striving for? If we are striving for our 5000 year old civilization, we have to come out of present System (atleast mentally), and visualise the way in which our traditional society was organised and functioning.. But if we want to retain current alien system in which we are trained for, better we stop talking about dharma, and get ourselves integrated completely with this system..

BJP leader and former Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Uma Bharti on Wednesday dared West Bengal government to arrest her after the administration withdrew the permission to hold a public event at Gangasagar from where she was scheduled to begin her Ganga Yatra on Friday.

“It was planned to be a non-political event where I had invited all, irrespective of their political inclinations, to join the yatra from Gangasagar to Gangotri,” said Uma reiterating that purpose of the yatra is to make people aware of the pollution of the holy river.

According to the BJP leader, on Monday they has received the necessary permission to hold the event. But on Friday she was told over phone that though she could go to Gangasagar, she will not be allowed to hold public meeting or procession or make any announcements.

“I am told there could be a law and order problem. I fail to understand how. I will continue with the yatra as per schedule and the state government can put me to jail if it wanted to,” she told mediapersons and promised to return on Friday as she left the city to take part in the bandh called by the BJP and other political parties.

“The state government is playing politics over it and I would request Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to change her mind and to join the yatra,” Uma added.

She also said that it was unfortunate that the ruling Trinamool was looking the event through a communal view point. “Ganga belongs to everyone and we had sent out invitation to even the masjid heads. In fact, what the government is doing is dangerous for the communal harmony in the state,” she said.

Blaming his own party leaders for his ouster as the chief minister, BJP strongman in Karnataka B S Yeddyurappa on Monday claimed that people’s backing for him has only increased since then.

“I am indebted to the people for supporting me even after losing the chief minister’s seat,” Yeddyurappa, who was forced to quit in July last year after a Lokayukta report on illegal mining indicted him, said.

Addressing a public rally near Davanagere, Yeddyurappa, on a state-wide tour to understand the problems faced by the people due to drought, alleged that his own party leaders conspired against him to remove him from the chief minister’s post.

“More than the leaders from Opposition parties, my own party members conspired against me and succeeded to remove me from the chief minister’s post. Power and position is of less importance if one’s pride is hurt,” Yeddyurappa said.

BJP came to power because of people’s support and he would again occupy the chief minister’s seat with their blessings, he said.

“If I became CM again, I will make Karnataka a model state in the country,” he claimed.

Yeddyurappa, battling a series of corruption cases, has been eyeing the post of state unit party oresident, but the BJP central leadership has not conceded his demand.